Parks Commission

Montpelier Parks Commission Meeting 17 Feb 2015 Commissioners present: Emily, Bryan, Lyn, Alec, Kip, Geoff Called to order at 7:07PM Approving Meeting Minutes​ (November and January) –​B​ryan moves to approve, with proviso that we add the “​ ”p ​ater Park​ W ​roposal to January minutes. Filling Vacant Seat​ –T​he Commission will have an election for one seat, but has two vacancies to fill (owing to Cara Robechek​ ’s​departure before the end of her term). We neglected to get this clarified for the ballot. So the Commission can appoint to fill Cara​’s​seat until the next election in 2016. At that point, Emily welcomed two candidates who attended the meeting: Carolyn Grodinsky and Nolan Langweil. ’s​vacancy with the second-place finisher in the race. Lyn One idea from Bryan: We fill Cara​ wondered: what if the second- and third-place finishers finished close, perhaps we open it up to application and appointment process. But, practically, maybe ’ s​easier to pick the top two. it​ Emily suggested we not worry about the margin in the race. Basically, the Commission concluded that ’ it​s​balancing the authority of the Commission to fill a vacancy vs. the will of the voters, even though ’ s​not exactly how we had planned to determine the will of the voters. Kip​ it​ ’s​okay with picking the second-place finisher, as the best option, in what we​’v ​e all acknowledge is an imperfect situation. Kip Motion: That we appoint the second-place finisher in the 2015 election to fill the vacancy until the 2016 election. Passed unanimously (4-0). Final Budget and Implications for Park Operations​ (Geoff) –​T ​he Commission is generally pleased with the way the budget went this year. We were level-funded last year. “​ ​here is no T ” s​ fluff,​ aid Geoff. No revenue increase for Caretaker rent. This budget continues to require us to raise $6,000 in revenues to make budget. Grants for operating funds are hard to find. Subcommittees​ –​ The commission discussed the need for subcommittees to be able to move projects forward swiftly and to be more effective. Here are suggestions (some of which may be standing, some time or project limited): - Signage and Maps - Long-term Planning (including visioning, budgeting, integration/efficiencies with other city departments) - Recreational Events - Fundraising –​I​ ce on Fire, by way of an example, could do a better job collecting fees, none of which (of what​ ’s​collected) go the Parks. - Land Acquisition, Park Visioning and Trails and Greenprint –​G​eoff suggests: One member from Parks, one from Conservation and a couple of members of the public as a standing committee. Emily expressed concern that standing committees tend to make a lot of committee work. So perhaps consider project-oriented committees. The Commission decided to reconsider subcommittee at the March meeting, once we​’r​ e seated with new members. –A Music in the Park​ ’r​ ​lec has got it in motion with local groups. We​ e working on it. Greenprint Discussion –​T ​he Commission reviewed the document, affirmed certain priorities and Emily will take our aspirations to the Conservation Commission meeting this Thursday. ’ s​ It​ ’s​zoning process. The Commission may revisit this. It could come up in a part of the City​ subcommittee. Emily has left the door open for ideas to share with the Conservation Commission. Items for future agendas​ : ­ Ideas for finding $6,000 in revenue (including event fees) ­ An official name for “​ S​ ” tonewall Meadows Park​ ToDo: ­ Emily will check with City Hall about: ­ getting the Caretaker lease signed ­ no increase on dog revenue fee, so we lack this expected revenue source in our budget ­ talk to Aaron Brondyke about joining her for Greenprint discussion ­ Bryan will refine the subcommittee proposal and bring it back to the Commission for its March meeting Adjourned​ : 8:59PM